Evaluate : $limlimits_{x to infty} x cdot left(frac{1}{x!}right)^{1/x}$ [on hold]












1














I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$



If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?










share|cite|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 2




    No displaystyle in titles please.
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 11:43










  • @Did I request you to edit the title.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:06






  • 1




    What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 12:12


















1














I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$



If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?










share|cite|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 2




    No displaystyle in titles please.
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 11:43










  • @Did I request you to edit the title.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:06






  • 1




    What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 12:12
















1












1








1


1





I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$



If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?










share|cite|improve this question















I'm trying to evaluate $$displaystyle lim_{x to infty} x cdot left(dfrac{1}{x!}right)^{dfrac{1}{x}}$$



If you can't use the Stirling's approximation, how would you proceed?







limits stirling-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 2 at 11:42









Did

246k23220454




246k23220454










asked Dec 2 at 11:27









Atiq Rahman

693




693




put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




put on hold as off-topic by RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – RRL, KReiser, Jyrki Lahtonen, Paul Frost, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 2




    No displaystyle in titles please.
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 11:43










  • @Did I request you to edit the title.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:06






  • 1




    What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 12:12
















  • 2




    No displaystyle in titles please.
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 11:43










  • @Did I request you to edit the title.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:06






  • 1




    What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
    – Did
    Dec 2 at 12:12










2




2




No displaystyle in titles please.
– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43




No displaystyle in titles please.
– Did
Dec 2 at 11:43












@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06




@Did I request you to edit the title.
– Atiq Rahman
Dec 2 at 12:06




1




1




What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12






What? You mean, to revert to your version? Sorry but I will not. If, for reasons you do not state and which I find difficult to fathom, you want to take the responsibility to revert my edit, this is your problem, not mine. However, before you do so, you might wish to read a page or two about how to type things correctly on this site...
– Did
Dec 2 at 12:12












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














Taking the logarithm,



$$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.



$$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$



Hence $$e.$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:05






  • 1




    The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 2 at 12:47








  • 3




    At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
    – 伽罗瓦
    Dec 2 at 12:56



















3














Let consider



$$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$



and by "ratio-root" criterion



$$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$





Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.



Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that



$$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$



then



$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$



by induction we can easily show that



$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$



$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$



and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$



$$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$



and then eventually



$$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$






share|cite|improve this answer






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    Taking the logarithm,



    $$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.



    $$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$



    Hence $$e.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
      – Atiq Rahman
      Dec 2 at 12:05






    • 1




      The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
      – Yves Daoust
      Dec 2 at 12:47








    • 3




      At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
      – 伽罗瓦
      Dec 2 at 12:56
















    3














    Taking the logarithm,



    $$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.



    $$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$



    Hence $$e.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
      – Atiq Rahman
      Dec 2 at 12:05






    • 1




      The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
      – Yves Daoust
      Dec 2 at 12:47








    • 3




      At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
      – 伽罗瓦
      Dec 2 at 12:56














    3












    3








    3






    Taking the logarithm,



    $$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.



    $$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$



    Hence $$e.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Taking the logarithm,



    $$-frac1nsum_{k=1}^nlogfrac kn$$ is a Riemannian sum.



    $$-int_0^1log t,dt=left.t(log t-1)right|_0^1=1.$$



    Hence $$e.$$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 2 at 11:37









    Yves Daoust

    124k671221




    124k671221












    • You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
      – Atiq Rahman
      Dec 2 at 12:05






    • 1




      The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
      – Yves Daoust
      Dec 2 at 12:47








    • 3




      At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
      – 伽罗瓦
      Dec 2 at 12:56


















    • You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
      – Atiq Rahman
      Dec 2 at 12:05






    • 1




      The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
      – Yves Daoust
      Dec 2 at 12:47








    • 3




      At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
      – 伽罗瓦
      Dec 2 at 12:56
















    You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:05




    You're being a magician here. If you play with $e$ , you're going to end up with $e$ too. That's not an interesting approach.
    – Atiq Rahman
    Dec 2 at 12:05




    1




    1




    The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 2 at 12:47






    The answer is $e$, I cannot forge it. Your comment is uncalled-for, not understanding the answer does not allow you to be rude.
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 2 at 12:47






    3




    3




    At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
    – 伽罗瓦
    Dec 2 at 12:56




    At first I thought he was calling you a magician because that was a really nice proof.
    – 伽罗瓦
    Dec 2 at 12:56











    3














    Let consider



    $$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$



    and by "ratio-root" criterion



    $$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$





    Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.



    Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that



    $$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$



    then



    $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$



    by induction we can easily show that



    $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$



    $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$



    and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$



    $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$



    and then eventually



    $$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      3














      Let consider



      $$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$



      and by "ratio-root" criterion



      $$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$





      Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.



      Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that



      $$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$



      then



      $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$



      by induction we can easily show that



      $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$



      $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$



      and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$



      $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$



      and then eventually



      $$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        3












        3








        3






        Let consider



        $$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$



        and by "ratio-root" criterion



        $$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$





        Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.



        Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that



        $$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$



        then



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$



        by induction we can easily show that



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$



        and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$



        and then eventually



        $$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Let consider



        $$a_n=n cdot left(dfrac{1}{n!}right)^{dfrac{1}{n}}=sqrt[n]{b_n}quad b_n=frac{n^n}{n!}$$



        and by "ratio-root" criterion



        $$frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}=frac{(n+1)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}frac{n!}{n^n}=left(1+frac1nright)^nto e implies a_n to e$$





        Here a proof for the criterion without using $limsup$ and $liminf$ concept.



        Let assume $frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}to L$ then for any $epsilon >0$ exists $n_0in mathbb{N}$ such that



        $$L-frac{epsilon}2le frac{b_{n+1}}{b_n} le L-frac{epsilon}2 quad forall nge n_0$$



        then



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0}le b_{n_0+1} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)b_{n_0} $$



        by induction we can easily show that



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0}le b_{n_0+k} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^kb_{n_0} $$



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^nleft(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}le b_{n} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^n left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0} $$



        and taking the $sqrt[n]{dots}$



        $$left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{left(L-frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}}le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} leleft(L+frac{epsilon}2right)sqrt[n]{ left(L+frac{epsilon}2right)^{-n_0}b_{n_0}} $$



        and then eventually



        $$L-epsilon le sqrt[n]{b_{n}} le L+epsilon iff sqrt[n]{b_{n}}to L$$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 2 at 12:31

























        answered Dec 2 at 11:59









        gimusi

        1




        1















            Popular posts from this blog

            Berounka

            Sphinx de Gizeh

            Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...